before you make any assumption, i'm not don juan on this issue. i own a gun and certainly agree that the argument that making laws that would prevent decent people from having guns while criminals could easily get them is a good argument. this is more of a criticism of people who argue the second amendment any time someone propose a gun restriction. but i'm no constittuional scholar so i'm open to the idea i may be wrong. on the other hand, i'm not sure how you can logically argue the second amendment is this powerful protection given the restrictions i mention below, which you may or may not know about.
a lot of people are not allowed to have guns and
the 2nd amendment doesn't seem give any indication the prohibition is
authorized. the second amendment, like the rest of the constitution,
really doesn't mean much. it's just how it is interpreted.
the following people cannot buy a gun:
- kid steals an xbox at age 18 and gets convicted of theft can never buy a gun
- guy writes a $300 bad check and gets convicted, can never buy a gun
- 19 year old kids gets caught with 20 grams of marijuana, can never have a gun
- anyone dishonorably discharged from the military (which is not that hard to do), can never buy a gun
- your girlfriend says you are harassing her, you can't buy a gun (under many, very common circumstances)
- you
and your girlfriend get into an argument, maybe you push each other, no
one gets hurt, she gets mad and calls the police, some police
departments have a policy where they will arrest someone if they have
to come out for this and most likely it'll be the guy. there is a good
chance that guy will never be able to buy a gun.
if the second amendment is such a strong right and so sacred, someone show me where in there these laws are unconstitutional.
if
you can't do that, then don't tell me that other gun restrictions or
assault rifle bans are unconstitutional due to the second amendment.
the second amendment doesn't amount to much. the pro gun people just
choose to ignore the restrictions that i mention above because they
aren't affected by them i suppose and only focus on the ones that do.
it's your standard selective constitutional comprehension.
and
i'm not siding with don juan on this issue. i'm just telling you how it
is and how disingenuous all this pro gun second amendment rhetoric is
as if the amendment protects your gun rights any time the discussion of a
restriction comes up.
you don't have much in the way of gun
rights. the second amendment means little. fortunately what you do
have is a huge lobby with a lot of money that can buy politicians to
interpret the constitution how you'd like it to. just like with any
other part of the constitution. the constitution itself is practically meaningless. it' is how it is interpreted that matters. and money buys that interpretation. that is much more powerful than anything in the constitution.
before you make any assumption, i'm not don juan on this issue. i own a gun and certainly agree that the argument that making laws that would prevent decent people from having guns while criminals could easily get them is a good argument. this is more of a criticism of people who argue the second amendment any time someone propose a gun restriction. but i'm no constittuional scholar so i'm open to the idea i may be wrong. on the other hand, i'm not sure how you can logically argue the second amendment is this powerful protection given the restrictions i mention below, which you may or may not know about.
a lot of people are not allowed to have guns and
the 2nd amendment doesn't seem give any indication the prohibition is
authorized. the second amendment, like the rest of the constitution,
really doesn't mean much. it's just how it is interpreted.
the following people cannot buy a gun:
- kid steals an xbox at age 18 and gets convicted of theft can never buy a gun
- guy writes a $300 bad check and gets convicted, can never buy a gun
- 19 year old kids gets caught with 20 grams of marijuana, can never have a gun
- anyone dishonorably discharged from the military (which is not that hard to do), can never buy a gun
- your girlfriend says you are harassing her, you can't buy a gun (under many, very common circumstances)
- you
and your girlfriend get into an argument, maybe you push each other, no
one gets hurt, she gets mad and calls the police, some police
departments have a policy where they will arrest someone if they have
to come out for this and most likely it'll be the guy. there is a good
chance that guy will never be able to buy a gun.
if the second amendment is such a strong right and so sacred, someone show me where in there these laws are unconstitutional.
if
you can't do that, then don't tell me that other gun restrictions or
assault rifle bans are unconstitutional due to the second amendment.
the second amendment doesn't amount to much. the pro gun people just
choose to ignore the restrictions that i mention above because they
aren't affected by them i suppose and only focus on the ones that do.
it's your standard selective constitutional comprehension.
and
i'm not siding with don juan on this issue. i'm just telling you how it
is and how disingenuous all this pro gun second amendment rhetoric is
as if the amendment protects your gun rights any time the discussion of a
restriction comes up.
you don't have much in the way of gun
rights. the second amendment means little. fortunately what you do
have is a huge lobby with a lot of money that can buy politicians to
interpret the constitution how you'd like it to. just like with any
other part of the constitution. the constitution itself is practically meaningless. it' is how it is interpreted that matters. and money buys that interpretation. that is much more powerful than anything in the constitution.
You are correct, Club. Our 2nd amendment right means jack squat. I've read about this issue. This is what I've found searching the internet and what I've learned...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What’s interesting about this language is that it states that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. The Founding Fathers placed a bright-line prohibition on infringement of the right.
They knew the difference between an outright prohibition and the providing to the federal government the ability to place reasonable restrictions on a right. For example, the Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” search and seizure.
These gun “laws” are Unconstitutional, but the trick is they don’t exist in the jurisdiction of Common/Constitutional Law.
They exist in the jurisdiction of Contract Law… also known as Admiralty, Maritime, or Corporate Law. The courts like to hide this fact by calling it “Statutory Jurisdiction”… but it all amounts to the same thing. This is how the courts and government sneak around the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
These “laws”, which are actually Corporate Stature, exist in a jurisdiction where the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not exist… only Contract Law exists there. Corporate stature applies only to those within that organization… and to those who enter into a contract with them.
You are correct, Club. Our 2nd amendment right means jack squat. I've read about this issue. This is what I've found searching the internet and what I've learned...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What’s interesting about this language is that it states that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. The Founding Fathers placed a bright-line prohibition on infringement of the right.
They knew the difference between an outright prohibition and the providing to the federal government the ability to place reasonable restrictions on a right. For example, the Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” search and seizure.
These gun “laws” are Unconstitutional, but the trick is they don’t exist in the jurisdiction of Common/Constitutional Law.
They exist in the jurisdiction of Contract Law… also known as Admiralty, Maritime, or Corporate Law. The courts like to hide this fact by calling it “Statutory Jurisdiction”… but it all amounts to the same thing. This is how the courts and government sneak around the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
These “laws”, which are actually Corporate Stature, exist in a jurisdiction where the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not exist… only Contract Law exists there. Corporate stature applies only to those within that organization… and to those who enter into a contract with them.
detox's statement is consistent. politicians today, both pro gun and pro gun control, couldn't give a f*ck about the founding fathers intended or what the constitution says.
being "pro constitution" means: 1) come up with your agenda agenda, whatever it is, 2) interpret the constituion to fit that agenda, and 3) buy the politicians to implement the agenda, or in the case of politicians implement the agenda of whatever group has bought you.
detox's statement is consistent. politicians today, both pro gun and pro gun control, couldn't give a f*ck about the founding fathers intended or what the constitution says.
being "pro constitution" means: 1) come up with your agenda agenda, whatever it is, 2) interpret the constituion to fit that agenda, and 3) buy the politicians to implement the agenda, or in the case of politicians implement the agenda of whatever group has bought you.
Club, if a person gets harassed by the cops and one of those weak charges reaches their record... Their lawyer should find a new profession.
if only it got that far. let me tell you what happens hundreds of times a day across this country relevant to "gun righys"
let's use one of those domestic disputes as an example. some argument happens or maybe some pushing and shoving or maybe a mutual fight or self defense or whatever., no one kniows because these usually happen in the home with no witnesses (not in an elevator with a camerta0> the cop shows up and arrests one of them. or maybe the girl calls the police and the guy takes off. that's an automatic arrest for him. anyway, he goes to jail that night and sees a judge that next morning because you are supposed to see a judge within 24 hours for a first apep[arance hearing. at the hearing the judge tells the guy, if you want to plead no contest (same as guilty), i'll let you out with no more jail time and you just have to go to an anger management class. the guy says, well that's not bad but i'm not guilty. the judge says, ok, your bond is $15,000 and your next court date is in 4 weeks. see you then.
if the guy knows he can't bond out and doesn't want to sit in jail for 4 weeks or maybe needs a week for his people to get the bond money together but will lost his job if he misses a couple of days of work, what do you think many people in his situation do? say goodbye to his "gun rights"
here's another example. this was actually one of mine. 50 year old guy who's never been in any trouble walks his dog with his disabled wife. he carries his handgun with him all of the time. his dog walks onto to the "victim" yard and the victim is in his garage. he yells at the guy and uses all sorts of profanity to get the dog off his lawn. our guy yells back. victim grabs a bat and runs down his driveway in a menacing manner. our guy pulls out his gun and points it at the ground. victim holds the bat like he is going to swing it at our guy or his wife. at some point, the victim drops the bat and our guy puts his gun back in his holster and the two fight. our guy wins and yells for a neighbor to call the cops on the victim. cops come and arrest our guy for aggravated assault. a neighbor friend of the victim tells the cops our guy pointed the gun at the victim and threatened to kill him.
i tell the guy i can probably win this. but i might not, and if i don't, there is a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 years in prison if we lose. so this guy who is 50 and never been in jail before and has to take care of his disabled wife can't risk it. he gets a good deal but is stuck with a felony. no more "gun rights" for him.
Club, if a person gets harassed by the cops and one of those weak charges reaches their record... Their lawyer should find a new profession.
if only it got that far. let me tell you what happens hundreds of times a day across this country relevant to "gun righys"
let's use one of those domestic disputes as an example. some argument happens or maybe some pushing and shoving or maybe a mutual fight or self defense or whatever., no one kniows because these usually happen in the home with no witnesses (not in an elevator with a camerta0> the cop shows up and arrests one of them. or maybe the girl calls the police and the guy takes off. that's an automatic arrest for him. anyway, he goes to jail that night and sees a judge that next morning because you are supposed to see a judge within 24 hours for a first apep[arance hearing. at the hearing the judge tells the guy, if you want to plead no contest (same as guilty), i'll let you out with no more jail time and you just have to go to an anger management class. the guy says, well that's not bad but i'm not guilty. the judge says, ok, your bond is $15,000 and your next court date is in 4 weeks. see you then.
if the guy knows he can't bond out and doesn't want to sit in jail for 4 weeks or maybe needs a week for his people to get the bond money together but will lost his job if he misses a couple of days of work, what do you think many people in his situation do? say goodbye to his "gun rights"
here's another example. this was actually one of mine. 50 year old guy who's never been in any trouble walks his dog with his disabled wife. he carries his handgun with him all of the time. his dog walks onto to the "victim" yard and the victim is in his garage. he yells at the guy and uses all sorts of profanity to get the dog off his lawn. our guy yells back. victim grabs a bat and runs down his driveway in a menacing manner. our guy pulls out his gun and points it at the ground. victim holds the bat like he is going to swing it at our guy or his wife. at some point, the victim drops the bat and our guy puts his gun back in his holster and the two fight. our guy wins and yells for a neighbor to call the cops on the victim. cops come and arrest our guy for aggravated assault. a neighbor friend of the victim tells the cops our guy pointed the gun at the victim and threatened to kill him.
i tell the guy i can probably win this. but i might not, and if i don't, there is a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 years in prison if we lose. so this guy who is 50 and never been in jail before and has to take care of his disabled wife can't risk it. he gets a good deal but is stuck with a felony. no more "gun rights" for him.
if only it got that far. let me tell you what happens hundreds of times a day across this country relevant to "gun righys"
let's use one of those domestic disputes as an example. some argument happens or maybe some pushing and shoving or maybe a mutual fight or self defense or whatever., no one kniows because these usually happen in the home with no witnesses (not in an elevator with a camerta0> the cop shows up and arrests one of them. or maybe the girl calls the police and the guy takes off. that's an automatic arrest for him. anyway, he goes to jail that night and sees a judge that next morning because you are supposed to see a judge within 24 hours for a first apep[arance hearing. at the hearing the judge tells the guy, if you want to plead no contest (same as guilty), i'll let you out with no more jail time and you just have to go to an anger management class. the guy says, well that's not bad but i'm not guilty. the judge says, ok, your bond is $15,000 and your next court date is in 4 weeks. see you then.
if the guy knows he can't bond out and doesn't want to sit in jail for 4 weeks or maybe needs a week for his people to get the bond money together but will lost his job if he misses a couple of days of work, what do you think many people in his situation do? say goodbye to his "gun rights"
here's another example. this was actually one of mine. 50 year old guy who's never been in any trouble walks his dog with his disabled wife. he carries his handgun with him all of the time. his dog walks onto to the "victim" yard and the victim is in his garage. he yells at the guy and uses all sorts of profanity to get the dog off his lawn. our guy yells back. victim grabs a bat and runs down his driveway in a menacing manner. our guy pulls out his gun and points it at the ground. victim holds the bat like he is going to swing it at our guy or his wife. at some point, the victim drops the bat and our guy puts his gun back in his holster and the two fight. our guy wins and yells for a neighbor to call the cops on the victim. cops come and arrest our guy for aggravated assault. a neighbor friend of the victim tells the cops our guy pointed the gun at the victim and threatened to kill him.
i tell the guy i can probably win this. but i might not, and if i don't, there is a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 years in prison if we lose. so this guy who is 50 and never been in jail before and has to take care of his disabled wife can't risk it. he gets a good deal but is stuck with a felony. no more "gun rights" for him.
if only it got that far. let me tell you what happens hundreds of times a day across this country relevant to "gun righys"
let's use one of those domestic disputes as an example. some argument happens or maybe some pushing and shoving or maybe a mutual fight or self defense or whatever., no one kniows because these usually happen in the home with no witnesses (not in an elevator with a camerta0> the cop shows up and arrests one of them. or maybe the girl calls the police and the guy takes off. that's an automatic arrest for him. anyway, he goes to jail that night and sees a judge that next morning because you are supposed to see a judge within 24 hours for a first apep[arance hearing. at the hearing the judge tells the guy, if you want to plead no contest (same as guilty), i'll let you out with no more jail time and you just have to go to an anger management class. the guy says, well that's not bad but i'm not guilty. the judge says, ok, your bond is $15,000 and your next court date is in 4 weeks. see you then.
if the guy knows he can't bond out and doesn't want to sit in jail for 4 weeks or maybe needs a week for his people to get the bond money together but will lost his job if he misses a couple of days of work, what do you think many people in his situation do? say goodbye to his "gun rights"
here's another example. this was actually one of mine. 50 year old guy who's never been in any trouble walks his dog with his disabled wife. he carries his handgun with him all of the time. his dog walks onto to the "victim" yard and the victim is in his garage. he yells at the guy and uses all sorts of profanity to get the dog off his lawn. our guy yells back. victim grabs a bat and runs down his driveway in a menacing manner. our guy pulls out his gun and points it at the ground. victim holds the bat like he is going to swing it at our guy or his wife. at some point, the victim drops the bat and our guy puts his gun back in his holster and the two fight. our guy wins and yells for a neighbor to call the cops on the victim. cops come and arrest our guy for aggravated assault. a neighbor friend of the victim tells the cops our guy pointed the gun at the victim and threatened to kill him.
i tell the guy i can probably win this. but i might not, and if i don't, there is a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 years in prison if we lose. so this guy who is 50 and never been in jail before and has to take care of his disabled wife can't risk it. he gets a good deal but is stuck with a felony. no more "gun rights" for him.
Are you saying slavery is ok? I don't get your point. If you think some people shouldn't have any rights, I don't care about your stance on gun ownership.
Are you saying slavery is ok? I don't get your point. If you think some people shouldn't have any rights, I don't care about your stance on gun ownership.
I know that the constitutional rights are important and sacred. But to just think that something adopted in the 1700s should fully apply to today is not very forward thinking is it???
I know that the constitutional rights are important and sacred. But to just think that something adopted in the 1700s should fully apply to today is not very forward thinking is it???
I know that the constitutional rights are important and sacred. But to just think that something adopted in the 1700s should fully apply to today is not very forward thinking is it???
No. Like club said, people only use it when it fits their argument. People that use the bill of rights in their argument for guns should only be allowed to carry a flintlock musket.
I know that the constitutional rights are important and sacred. But to just think that something adopted in the 1700s should fully apply to today is not very forward thinking is it???
No. Like club said, people only use it when it fits their argument. People that use the bill of rights in their argument for guns should only be allowed to carry a flintlock musket.
Are you saying slavery is ok? I don't get your point. If you think some people shouldn't have any rights, I don't care about your stance on gun ownership.
I’m absolutely not saying slavery is ok. I’m saying at that time - slavery was the norm during those times.
People have rights. Property does not. That’s why blacks weren’t not considered equal.
To disparage the intelligence of the founders all because of slavery is foolish.
Are you saying slavery is ok? I don't get your point. If you think some people shouldn't have any rights, I don't care about your stance on gun ownership.
I’m absolutely not saying slavery is ok. I’m saying at that time - slavery was the norm during those times.
People have rights. Property does not. That’s why blacks weren’t not considered equal.
To disparage the intelligence of the founders all because of slavery is foolish.
I know that the constitutional rights are important and sacred. But to just think that something adopted in the 1700s should fully apply to today is not very forward thinking is it???
This train of thought is exactly why your Email and personal data are not protected.
I know that the constitutional rights are important and sacred. But to just think that something adopted in the 1700s should fully apply to today is not very forward thinking is it???
This train of thought is exactly why your Email and personal data are not protected.
detox's statement is consistent. politicians today, both pro gun and pro gun control, couldn't give a f*ck about the founding fathers intended or what the constitution says.
being "pro constitution" means: 1) come up with your agenda agenda, whatever it is, 2) interpret the constituion to fit that agenda, and 3) buy the politicians to implement the agenda, or in the case of politicians implement the agenda of whatever group has bought you.
My point was that there are instances where people can have their rights taken away consistent with the Constitution.
Due process of law, is necessary to take away anyone's rights.
detox's statement is consistent. politicians today, both pro gun and pro gun control, couldn't give a f*ck about the founding fathers intended or what the constitution says.
being "pro constitution" means: 1) come up with your agenda agenda, whatever it is, 2) interpret the constituion to fit that agenda, and 3) buy the politicians to implement the agenda, or in the case of politicians implement the agenda of whatever group has bought you.
My point was that there are instances where people can have their rights taken away consistent with the Constitution.
Due process of law, is necessary to take away anyone's rights.
My point was that there are instances where people can have their rights taken away consistent with the Constitution.
Due process of law, is necessary to take away anyone's rights.
definitely there are instances where rights being taken away is consistent with the constitution. not everyone out there is getting screwed.
but there are also many situations where it is inconsistent with the constitution. "due process" like gun rights, is also a term that can be interpreted any number of ways and means liuttle on its own. if you spent some time watching judges hand out restraining orders or people getting convicted of domestic violence crimes, thereby losing their gun rights, the term "due process" will take on a new meaning.
My point was that there are instances where people can have their rights taken away consistent with the Constitution.
Due process of law, is necessary to take away anyone's rights.
definitely there are instances where rights being taken away is consistent with the constitution. not everyone out there is getting screwed.
but there are also many situations where it is inconsistent with the constitution. "due process" like gun rights, is also a term that can be interpreted any number of ways and means liuttle on its own. if you spent some time watching judges hand out restraining orders or people getting convicted of domestic violence crimes, thereby losing their gun rights, the term "due process" will take on a new meaning.
They screwed up human rights but they hit the nail on the head with gun rights? Is that what you're saying?
How could the founders be aware of a concept, like human rights for all, when it didn’t even exist until the 20th century? The founders were aware of the threat of oppressive governments and the need for gun rights.
They screwed up human rights but they hit the nail on the head with gun rights? Is that what you're saying?
How could the founders be aware of a concept, like human rights for all, when it didn’t even exist until the 20th century? The founders were aware of the threat of oppressive governments and the need for gun rights.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.